We are all aware. The terminology used for the two different drivers is the problem. You don’t call a woman a female, that’s insulting. He had no problem to call a guy a guy, no “male” or such. It makes him sound like a misogynistic asshole.

People learn all the time. The fact that you are already familiar with something doesn’t mean everyone is. Please don’t be unkind.

Explain that to the insurance company, that seems to be the relevant problem here.

Ready to ponder.

And while we’re at it, I think Naegleria fowleri, the brain eating amoeba that lives in warm water and gets in through your nose should get an honorable mention!

Prions - yeah, they’re definitly creepy. They’re also hard to destroy, so they can accumulate in nature over time.

These are nasty, but I still find rabies the most scary

That explains my life.

I agree. But you can say turn to the right and people connect the clockwise movement of the wheel with the direction of the car, which makes it possible for people to understand each other’s instructions intuitively even if they use right-left terminilogy instead of the precise clockwise-counterclockwise one.

It doesn’t matter where you hold the wheel. When you’re turning right, you’re always doing the right movement for tightening a screw, no matter the hand position. That’s the point.

The starting point is on the top.

I think that was directed at the journalists coming up with clickbait, not the scientists.

Miserable fat Belgian bastards!

You buy shoes that are easy to swap - like no need to use hands kind of easy. You can also go barefoot at home, because the floor is clean.

Sometimes people need to play minecraft with their nephews or nieces. Trust me, it’s necessary and very much worth it.

I was talking about toxins in general in reaction to yout toxin comment. I think it’s logical to research the possibility of alcohol having some beneficial effects, the world is not black and white.

When it comes to studies of health risks/benefits of alcohol, they unfortunately seem to suffer from the same shortcomings as other health studies: lots of important factors are often ignored, like the type of alcoholic beverage consumed, lifestyle connected to the type or amount of alcohol, previous history of alcohol use… I can, of course, give you a link to a study that finds benefits to moderate alcohol use (although they are far from recomending it). Here’s one example from 2023

Personally, I think alcohol probably does more damage than benefit even in moderate dosing, but the truth is we still don’t really know and we need much more in-depth studies to find out.

I do get that, I was interested in the amount of milk and the name of the healthy things it blocks from being absorbed - there might be more than one, right?

Yes, but in case of this kind of nutrition/health studies the correlation=/=causation is often a big problem. There are usually so many things at play and the studies just look at a tiny subsetof them, making the results irrelevant or just plain wrong. I think this field would benefit greatly from a more ecological approach - in ecology, scientists often use methods for multidimensional analysis of a big number of factors that can or do influence the studied problem. This is rarely seen in medicine and nutrition, unfortunately.

I didn’t really understand the abstract, I’m affraid. Is CGA the same thing as chlorigenic acid and is that the antioxidant you’re talking about? Also, did they test coffee with a little milk? The abstract makes it sound like they tested coffee without milk and coffee made entirely of milk, which doesn’t happen in real life. I am confused.

Many toxins have medicinal uses.